Post
--
竹竹YZZ
·
--
Hi, I’m ZhuZhu! Today I want to talk to everyone about something that sounds a bit hardcore—actually, it’s a topic that everyone cares a lot about: the safety of our money bags. Why, in real financial settlement, is “probabilistic finality” absolutely something we can’t tolerate?
Try to picture this scenario: if you transfer a large amount of money or buy a batch of assets, and the system tells you, “This transaction has a 99.9% chance of succeeding, but there’s still a 0.1% chance it could be rolled back”—would you dare to accept that? Of course not! In the financial world, as long as it’s not 100% certain and irrevocable, it’s a huge risk minefield.
That’s why ZhuZhu feels that the design of @Dusk really moves me. It’s not about flexing or competing on block production speed. Instead, it’s meant to solve the most core pain point in finance: enabling escrow-versus-asset exchange to achieve truly atomic settlement. In plain terms, you pay and you get the goods—either everything succeeds at the same time, or everything fails at the same time. No dragging it out, no ambiguity!
Its SA mechanism follows three steps—proposal, verification, and approval—plus BLS aggregated signatures, making the security really tight. And its Rolling Finality state machine is especially decisive: once a transaction reaches the approval stage, it’s immediately locked in, absolutely irreversible. On top of that, it uses a deterministically seeded random selection mechanism based on the previous block’s signature, so it’s fully open and transparent who the validators are—there’s no way to manipulate it behind closed doors.
To put it simply, only by pushing deterministic finality to the extreme can compliant finance feel safe and confident running on-chain. That’s also where ZhuZhu believes $DUSK really has the staying power! What do you think?#dusk
ZhuZhu’s soul-question: Why can’t real financial settlement tolerate “probabilistic finality”?
Try to picture this scenario: if you transfer a large amount of money or buy a batch of assets, and the system tells you, “This transaction has a 99.9% chance of succeeding, but there’s still a 0.1% chance it could be rolled back”—would you dare to accept that? Of course not! In the financial world, as long as it’s not 100% certain and irrevocable, it’s a huge risk minefield.
That’s why ZhuZhu feels that the design of @Dusk really moves me. It’s not about flexing or competing on block production speed. Instead, it’s meant to solve the most core pain point in finance: enabling escrow-versus-asset exchange to achieve truly atomic settlement. In plain terms, you pay and you get the goods—either everything succeeds at the same time, or everything fails at the same time. No dragging it out, no ambiguity!
Its SA mechanism follows three steps—proposal, verification, and approval—plus BLS aggregated signatures, making the security really tight. And its Rolling Finality state machine is especially decisive: once a transaction reaches the approval stage, it’s immediately locked in, absolutely irreversible. On top of that, it uses a deterministically seeded random selection mechanism based on the previous block’s signature, so it’s fully open and transparent who the validators are—there’s no way to manipulate it behind closed doors.
To put it simply, only by pushing deterministic finality to the extreme can compliant finance feel safe and confident running on-chain. That’s also where ZhuZhu believes $DUSK really has the staying power! What do you think?#dusk
ZhuZhu’s soul-question: Why can’t real financial settlement tolerate “probabilistic finality”?
Disclaimer: Includes third-party opinions. No advice. Binance AI may be used without guarantee. See T&Cs.